Additionally, a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy may be misrepresented, resulting in a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy… ad infinitum.īut seriously now. Furthermore, the metafallacy cannot be used to protect it since, again, X and not X cannot both be true.Ī fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy describes the improper application of a fallacy fallacy fallacy. Hence, if any of this mountain of evidence against psychic powers is cited, psychics can merely reply "Well, you haven't proven me to be a fraud."īecause an X and its inverse cannot simultaneously be true, any argument that claims X and not X are both true can be discarded for doublethink. Yet still there is an inexhaustible supply of psychics and alleged psychic abilities - and people willing to pay them. Numerous individual psychics have been proven to be frauds, and study after study has shown that particular psychic abilities do not exist. An example where this is very common is among psychics. While fallacious reasoning in support of a position does not, in itself, provide absolute proof that the position is false, it does mean that the person making the argument has failed to present any case for it to be true.Īssertions that are supported only by fallacious reasoning and special pleading to get around debunked arguments, are unlikely to have much truth value. A fallacy fallacy fallacy then (or metafallacy fallacy), is the claim that disproving particular arguments or versions of a position is irrelevant to disproving the position itself.
Merely proving that an argument is fallacious does not prove that the whole entire position that it defends is immediately false. A fallacy fallacy happens because true statements can be defended through fallacious arguments.A fallacy is an argument that doesn't follow proper rules of logic."You have used the fallacy fallacy, therefore you are wrong" is as much an example as "you have used an ad hominem, therefore you are wrong" would be.
For a start, since the fallacy fallacy is itself a fallacy, it cannot be used to label an argument's conclusion as false without committing it in the process. Like Cohen's Law, this stacks nicely, or with amusing confusion. However, claiming that the entirety of proposition P (which could otherwise be an objective scientific truth or is supported by better arguments) is false, just because it could be, or is being, supported by fallacious argument A, is the fallacy fallacy. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the argument A is invalid. P2: Argument A contains a logical fallacy.
0 kommentar(er)
